Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 7/28/2016 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA July 28, 2016 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi- judicial hearing; said cases being the appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. 1. APPEAL #03-2016 Petitioner: Renee Bowerman on behalf of Edith Koehn Property: S71 W19446 Hillview Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.996 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 - Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A setback of 38.4-feet is required from the Hillview Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36.2-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 2.2-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2015 AND MAY 26, 2016 MEETING. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, CONTACT MUSKEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (262) 679-4100. Appeal # 03-2016 ZBA 7-28-2016 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 03-2016 For the meeting of: July 28, 2016 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. APPELLANT: Renee Bowerman on behalf of Edith Koehn LOCATION: S71 W19446 Hillview Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.996 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner recently contacted the City about the possible addition of a front porch/deck with stairs. The home currently only has one access/egress, which is located on the east side of the home along the driveway. This door is at grade. The homeowner recently was exploring homeowner’s insurance options when they were advised by some insurance companies that since the home only has one means of egress that it didn’t meet current safety code and stated that there may be issues insuring this structure due to this. In addition to this, the homeowner and her family decided that that they would like the ge neral functionality that the second access would provide for the current and future owners. This then led to the applicant applying for the 5’ x 8’ porch/deck with stairs to grade (heading eastward). They originally were thinking of applying for a 6’ x 9 porch/deck with stairs but they realized that would require a larger variance given the placement of the existing home. The front door that this porch/deck would serve has always existed, but was never previously used. The owner has stated that the hardship relates to the safety in and out of the home. Note – The City received one letter/email from a neighbor who could not make the meeting but wanted to voice their opinion in favor of the request. The lot currently contains a home and two accessory structures. The parcel is zoned ERS-3, Existing Suburban Residence District. The property is located on Hillview Drive. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: alternative An exception to the required setback from the front right-of-way line for allowance of a 5’ x 8’ front deck/porch with stairs. A setback of 38.4-feet is required from the Hillview Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36.2-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 2.2-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. DISCUSSION It is understandable that access to the front door is necessary for proper egress to and from this home, especially since there is only one other egress point currently. The question lies with the size of the proposed deck/porch and the stair location. Per the City’s Building Inspector, the current codes require a Appeal # 03-2016 ZBA 7-28-2016 Page 2 of 2 3 foot deep landing (in the direction of travel). The current proposed deck/porch is 5-feet deep and 8-feet wide with stairs going off the east side of the deck/porch towards the driveway. This proposed deck/porch is larger than is necessary and/or required for egress out of the home. A deck/porch of only 3-feet is required for egress. Per the Building Code, this is determined a safe minimal size. Also, the stairs could go off the west side of the deck/porch with a walkway to lead back to the driveway. These two slight alterations would then be the least variance necessary (less than a 6 inch variance to possibly no variance) while meeting the building code’s requirements. In any circumstance, some type of variance is needed due to the building code requirements and the need for ingress/egress in and out of the home. The question then is what is the “least variance possible”? The owner has stated that the reason that they are not pursuing a request for the least variance is due them wanting an entry/porch that is more welcoming and comfortable. They also stated that they are not proposing the stairs to the west since that would require a walkway to be built to connect this deck and stairs to the driveway and grass/landscape disturbance. These are “self-imposed hardships” and are “circumstances of the applicant”, which are not grounds for a variance per Zoning Case Law (see item #1 below). Only 3-feet of landing is required by code, which is based on safety and the stairs could proceed to the west. Here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case (and noted above): 1. Zoning Case Law states that “self-imposed hardships” and “circumstances of the applicant” are not grounds for granting a variance, such as wanting it a certain size for convenience, esthetics, or for a certain configuration for landscaping ease. 2. Zoning Case Law states that “lack of objections from neighbors does not provide grounds for granting a variance.” 3. Zoning Case Law states that the Board may only grant the minimum variance needed, if they are even going to grant any variance. In a case like this, the board should look at what is the least variance that would relieve unnecessary burdens. There are other options that meet the Building Code requirements that do not require as much of a variance. This includes a 3 foot deep landing with side stairs leading to grade to the west. This option still needs a variance of less than 6 inches, but that is still the least variance possible. Please see the applicant full submittal for full details on their request. NOTE: Please remember that the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owner(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to find a valid hardship in order to be able to approve a variance request. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Denial of Appeal 03-2016 as proposed, allowing a front deck/porch with a 36.2-foot setback, a 2.2- foot variance from the right-of-way line; citing that a deck/porch can be built with a three-foot landing with stairs to the west side, which meets the Building Code requirements. The hardships stated are self-imposed/self-created and not the least variance necessary. However, since there is a need for ingress/egress to the home through the front door, staff is receptive to the least variance possible for access to this home. That option would be to build a 3- 4 foot deck/porch (landing) with the necessary stairs to grade off the west side of the deck/porch. This meets the Zoning Case Law requirements of the least variance possible, while still providing proper access to the front door that meets the Buildin g Code requirements. This would then only require a variance of less than 6-inches to possibly no variance. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0100200 Fee t Ag en da Item(s) Pr op er tie s Zon in g D istr ic ts Rig ht -o f-Way Hy dr og rap hy Supp lem ental MapAppeal #0 3-2 016 Ed ith Koeh n S7 1 W 194 46 Hillview D r ive J A N E S V I L L E L O O M I S R D RA CIN E AV DURHAM W O O D S CO LL EG E Pre p ar ed b y C ity o f Mu ske g o P la n n in g D e p ar tm e nt Da te : 7 /2 3/2 0 16 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 26, 2016 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barb Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Blumenfield, Vice President Schneiker, Dr. Kashian, Mr. LeDoux, Mr. Petfalski Absent: Mr. Ristow and Mr. Robertson STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on May 20, 2016. NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi- judicial hearing; said cases being the appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPEAL #01-2016 Petitioner: Howard & Raemarie Schmidt Property: W187 S7160 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2175.996 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 - Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. An offset of 50-feet is required from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Little Muskego Lake on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks offsets of 28.37-feet (on the south) and 33.55-feet (on the north) from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 21.63-foot variance (on the south) and a 16.45-foot variance (on the north) from the required OHWM offset. Mr. Schneiker swore in the following: Rae Marie Schmidt, W187 S7160 Gold Drive David Conley, S70 W18899 Gold Drive Adam Trzebiatowski, City of Muskego, Planner Mrs. Schmidt explained they are requesting a variance to build a garage. Reasons for the variance are protection from weather and animals, security for their vehicles and equipment, and for storage of their property. Mr. Conely stated he is in opposition of the appeal. There is not a valid hardship because there is a spot on the lot the garage could be located. The hardship is self-imposed. Mr. Conley stated he is located across the bay on the other end of Gold Drive. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the petitioner is requesting to build a 22' x 24' garage and is requesting a variance of 21.63 feet on the south and 16.45 on the north from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Staff feels there is a valid hardship. The majority of the island has wetlands that cannot be built upon. The required setback is 50-feet from the OHW M. Staff did feel there is a hardship that all properties should be afforded the right to a garage. This garage is typical in size and the property is unique due to having water on both sides of the property. There is a boat house on the property that did receive a variance for size/height but not location. The boat house should only be used for boating related items. There is a possibility of putting the garage on Gold Drive which would be about 800 feet from the house. Based on Case Law this could be unnecessarily burdensome and the Board should take this into consideration. Staff recommends approval. Rick Petfalski made a motion to approve Appeal #01-2016 Petitioner: Howard & Raemarie Schmidt Property: W187 S7160 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2175.996 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 - Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. An offset of 50-feet is required from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Little Muskego Lake on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks offsets of 28.37-feet (on the south) and 33.55-feet (on the north) from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 21.63-foot variance (on the south) and a 16.45-foot variance (on the north) from the required OHWM offset. Butch LeDoux seconded. Dr. Kashian stated for the safety of the family paving the driveway should be considered as a better alternative. Mr. Le Doux stated he feels there would be security issues having a driveway 800 feet away and unnecessarily burdensome. Also, not having a basement is more of a reason to need a garage. Dr. Blumenfield explained the board has granted variances for garages in the past for aesthetics and property protection. Requiring the garage to be 800 feet away would be unnecessarily burdensome and the lot has unique characteristics of the lake that other properties don't have. Motion Passed 4 in favor 1 opposed. Dr. Kashian voted no. APPEAL #02-2016 Petitioner: Tom & Jennifer Sauer Property: S70 W19053 Wetland Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.954 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 - Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A setback of 40-feet is required from the Wentland Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 19.6-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 20.4-foot variance from the required right- of -way setback. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in the following: Tom Sauer, S70 W19053 Wentland Drive Adam Trzebiatowski, City of Muskego, Planner Mr. Schneiker stated he would be recusing himself from this appeal because he and Mr. Sauer are friends/neighbors. Mr. Sauer explained he recently did remodeling at his home. Mr. Sauer stated he believed there was a concrete stoop under a deck. When he removed the deck he found there wasn't a concrete stoop. He is requesting to install new stairs coming off the front of the house. Mr. Sauer stated the hardship was not having the house balanced and doesn't make the best use of the space with the stairs going off one side. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the petitioner is requesting 9.8 foot variance to the required right of way setback. The proposed deck is 10 feet wide and 4 feet deep with stairs going straight off the front towards the street 2.17 feet. The actual required setback is 29.4 feet due to neighboring properties being closer to the lot line also. It is understandable that ingress/egress to the house is needed. The building code requires 3 feet in direction of travel for the landing and staff feels this along with the stairs to the side would require the least amount of variance. Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve Appeal #02-2016 Petitioner: Tom & Jennifer Sauer Property: S70 W19053 Wetland Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.954 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 - Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A setback of 40-feet is required from the Wentland Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 19.6-feet from the right- of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 20.4-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. Dr. Russ Kashian seconded. Dr. Kashian and Mr. Petfalski both stated for ease of moving items in/out it makes sense to have a straight line out of the door. Mr. Le Doux added that in the case of an emergency it would be better for stretchers to get in/out of the house with the stairs out straight. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Mr. Schneiker abstained. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2015 MEETING Minutes were not approved due to attendance at the meeting. Minutes will be on the next agenda. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Rick Petfalski made a motion to adjourn at 6:53 PM. Henry Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 27, 2015 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barb Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Blumenfield, Mr. Robertson, Mr. LeDoux, Mr. Ristow and Planner Trzebiatowski. Absent: Dr. Kashian, Vice Chairman Schneiker, and Mr. Petfalski STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws. NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi- judicial hearing; said cases being the appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Appeal #02-2015 Petitioner: Bruce Lindl Property: W156 S7471 Martin Court / Tax Key No. 2197.197 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07 – Open Space (1) Minimum Required: No building, covered structure, or impervious surface shall be placed, erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less than the minimum required amount as identified by the underlying zoning district or less than 75% of the total lot size. The minimum open space allowed on this property is 13,783 square feet (75% of the 18,377 square foot lot). The appellant is proposing to remove and replace an existing rear patio, which results in the minimum open space regulation on the property being exceeded which requires a variance to the Code requirement. Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve Appeal #02-2015 as submitted. Aaron Robertson seconded. Motion Failed 2 in favor 2 opposed. Butch LeDoux made a motion to bring Appeal #02-2015 back for further discussion. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Butch LeDoux made a motion to Approve Appeal #02-2015 with an amendment to allow the patio to remain the same size as the existing patio with the outermost foot be pavers or open space. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 26, 2014 AND JULY 23, 2015 Aaron Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of June 26, 2014. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Dr. Barbara Blumenfield made a motion to approve the minutes of July 23, 2015. Butch LeDoux seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Butch LeDoux made a motion to adjourn at 7:22 PM. Aaron Robertson seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary